Go Back   ManagementParadise.com Forums PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT > Principles of Management ( P.O.M)

Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116


Discuss Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116 within the Principles of Management ( P.O.M) forums, part of the PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT category; ...

Reply

 

Thread Tools Display Modes
Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116
Old
 (1 (permalink))
cyanlts
cyanlts is an unknown quantity at this point
 
cyanlts
 
Institute: T A R D G
Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Join Date: Oct 2009
Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116 - October 26th, 2009

Piercing the corporate veil to obtain an advantage. Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116

A local govt, BC wanted to compulsorily acquire land owned by SSK. The land was occupied by Birmingham Waste Co Ltd (BWC), that operated a business there. BWC was a subsidiary of SSK.

When the court recognise an agency relationship. If a subsidiary company is acting as an agent for its holding company, it may be bound by the same liabilities and rights of its holding company. However, no court has yet found subsidiary companies liable for their holding company’s debts.

SSK owned some land, an a subsidiary company operated on this land. BC issued a compulsory purchase order on this land. Any company which owned the land would be paid for it, and would reasonably compensate any owner for the business they ran on the land. Since the subsidiary company did not own the land, BC claimed they were entitled to no compensation. The courts held that the subsidiary company was an agent and BC must pay compensation.

Issues: whether BWC was entitled to compensation from the local govt. Whether BWC was an agent for SSK.

Held: that six requirements must be established before the Salomon principle could be disregarded to support the finding that a subsidiary carried on a business as agent for its holding company.

The court lifted the veil of incorporation to find out the ownership of the waste paper business and the ownership of the land, which the waste paper business was operated. The court found out Smith, Stone& Knight Ltd, a holding company did not transfer ownership of waste paper business and land to Birmingham Corp. Therefore, the waste paper business was still the business of parent co& it was operated by the subsidiary as agent of the parent co.

The profit of the subsidiary must be treated as the profits of the holding company
The persons conducting the business must be appointed by the holding company
The holding co must govern the venture and decide what should be done and what capital should be embarked on it
The profits of the business must be made by the holding company’s skill and direction
The holding co must be in effective and constant control
Advertisements
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Related to Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116
 

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Knight Intro Knight Introduce Yourself !! 0 July 20th, 2009 07:31 PM
stone cold Intro stone cold Introduce Yourself !! 0 February 16th, 2009 08:38 PM
UK UNI: Birmingham City University` navin_c International MBA 0 August 25th, 2008 11:12 PM
Summer Season At Birmingham Ballet Maya Raichura Articles !! 0 June 6th, 2008 08:10 PM
Kerala CM to lay foundation stone for Rs 4,000 crore 'Cyber City' Melroy Lopes Articles !! 0 January 18th, 2008 01:30 AM
 
Re: Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116
Old
 (2 (permalink))
Vinod Gupta
vinod_gupta34 is an unknown quantity at this point
 
vinod_gupta34
Student of MBA at VEER BAHADUR SINGH PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Management Paradise Newbie
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 392
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Re: Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116 - August 6th, 2014

That's Really A Nice Information.
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Re: Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116
Old
 (3 (permalink))
Business Education
Business-education is on a distinguished road
 
Business-education
Student of BMM
Mumbai, Maharashtra
Management Paradise Guru
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,330
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Re: Smith Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation 1939]4 All ER 116 - June 12th, 2015

Comparison is always between nemesis and merger and acquisition is between friends. Both are two different stages. Comparison will lead you to find out the ways to do something unique and how to be ahead of the competitors.While, mergers and acquisition is a smart way,where competitor becomes friends so that they both can lead the market and monopoly has been established.
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
116, andamp, birmingham, corporation, knight, smith, stone


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


ManagementParadise.com is not responsible for the views and opinion of the posters. The posters and only posters shall be liable for any copyright infringement.